Thanks!
And while I (don't) have your ear, I'd suggest having a look at some alternatives to Monotype Garamond. I think the basic look of the MD layout is clear and good, but MT Garamond can be problematic and a different Garamond would, I think, make it better.
MT Garamond doesn't set easily and much of its default kerning in its digital form is dubious. It's infamous for its 'characterful'/schizoid italics, which, despite being things of horror in and of themselves, track especially poorly when placed alongside Roman and other characters, as HQ does moderately often. (Have a look at how runes kern with parentheses and lining numbers, for example.)
It also can be light on the page, on account of its particular digitisation not really taking into account the old sets' ink bleed. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing in the recent supplements, as the density of text and layout benefits from a certain lightness. But it can occasionally appear spindly and this can be exacerbated in smaller-press publishing.
Monotype Garamond has been a popular choice of typeface for those getting into publishing of any form, given that it's been bundled with Microsoft Word over the years. (I wonder how the new Calibri/Cambria generation will fare?) It's a common choice for those first looking beyond Times New Roman, but it can be tricky and unkind to those that use it. I know; I set my first thesis in MT Garamond, and it's a thing of horror.
If you're looking to retain the style and feel of the line, but present a better aesthetic, I'd suggest an alternative, 'proper' Garamond (with cleaner Granjon or even Garamond italics), rather than a Jannon (like Monotype's).
Adobe Garamond (albeit overused in mainstream publishing), Adobe Garamond Pro, Stempel and Sabon are all good.
Powered by hypermail